73

MILANESEMASTER

Roger�Hargrave�examines�a�1712�viola�by�Giovanni�Grancino

With the exception of Carlo Ferdinando Landolfi,and G.B. Guadagnini's brief period in Milan, GiovanniGrancino was probably the most important and cer-tainly the most influential maker of that city. How-ever in spite of his pre eminent position, details ofhis family, background, and training remain obscure.Lüttgendorff 1 and his plagiarist Jalovec 2 list nineMilanese makers of the Grancino family. Hart listsonly four, but he waxes lyrical about the work ofPaolo Grancino suggesting that he was prolific andthat his style was particularly distinctive: Paolo is de-scribed as a `favourite pupil of Nicholas Amati' andthe father of Giovanni. Both Fridolin 3 and Walter 4Hamma agree that Paolo was Giovanni's father, butthere remains some confusion between them as tohow many working members of the family there

were and in which order they appear. Fetis 6 writingin the mid 19th century lists Paolo Grancino (as apupil of Nicolo Amati, who worked in Milan from1665 to 1690) and his two sons John (1696 to 1720)and John Baptist 1690 to 1700. Probably the earliestreference to the family is that made by Cozio di Sal-abue 7 who says simply the Grancini f's are very likethose of Nicolo Amati in their finish. Unfortunatelythere is no mention of specific members of the fam-ily. Biographies by other writers such as Möller 8 andFarga 9 contain much consensus, some probabilityand very little fact. As usual the situation is bestsummed up in a few sentences by the Hills 10, thistime from their Violin Makers of the Guarneri Family. They refer to the census returns of Andrea Guarnerifor the year 1665:

74There exists one other name, Paolo Grancino, the al-

leged work of whom bears, so we find, relationship to An-drea. But in reality we have no absolute knowledge of thisparticular Grancino, have never seen an instrument withhis original label, and so far have not met with any re-sponsible expert who has done so.

We do recognize the existence of `Grancino' instru-ments, both violins and violoncellos, earlier and more dis-tinguished than those of the wellknown type bearing thelabel of Giovanni Grancino, and dating from about 1680 to1730. We refer to instruments covered by a fine oil var-nish, the general character of which bears analogy to thatof Andrea Guarneri. They are found as a rule inscribed asthe work of one or other of the Cremonese makers. We arealso acquainted with the instruments made jointly by thefratelli (brothers), Giovanni and Francesco, which datefrom Milan about 1670-80.

To resume, we should say that if Paolo Grancinoreally existed, he was a pupil of Andrea and conse-quently must have worked at some period in Cre-mona.

So much for biography. What remains to be saidabout the legacy of the Grancinos? Surely the mostinfamous quote from violin literature is the Hillbrothers 11 allusion to the `Milanese cheap jacks'. Theterm is used twice in their work on the life of Stradi-vari and in a footnote they explain: `We here refer tosuch makers as Grancino, the several makers of theTestore family and their followers.'

Whereas this round condemnation may be justi-fied in that all of the Milanese violin makers were ca-pable of undistinguished and even coarse work it hasbeen demonstrated beyond any shadow of doubt thattheir instruments do possess exceptional tonal qual-ities. This is perhaps best observed in the work ofPietro Testore, possibly the most raw (not inept orincompetent) violin maker of all time.

It should be remembered that the Milanese weregenerally not able to command the patronage whichwould have allowed them to exercise their skills fully.It is therefore unfair to assume that these makerswere incapable of fine craftsmanship or elegant lines.On the contrary, I can think of a beautifully workedQuintone by Carlo Giuseppe Testore from the work-shop of Grancino (now housed in the Shrine to MusicMuseum 12) and also many fine violins and cellos bythe Testore family, Landolfi and the Grancinos. Pro-duction of violas in Milan was less common, whichmakes the example illustrated here particularly in-teresting.

Arguably the greatest gift of the Milan school layin their prolific output. Possibly because of their em-

phasis on their presumably more affordable pricerange, Milanese instruments tended to reach work-ing musicians. As a consequence they probably led amore perilous existence than the relatively secureone proffered by Cremona's wealthy clientele (a sit-uation which has not changed very much today). Theresult has been that few Milanese instruments havesurvived unscathed. Since Grancino violas are in anycase less common it is something of a rarity to findone in such remarkable condition.

Although Giovanni Grancino was working on hisown account from about 1685 there are instrumentslabelled Francesco and Giovanni de Grancini fromabout 1670 onwards. The varnish of these earlier in-struments (before 1700) is softer and more red intone and far more in keeping with Cremonese var-nish than the harder yellower type which we gener-ally associate with Milan and with which this 1712viola was finished. Neither is the so called Amati in-fluence so apparent here.

The viola is labelled 'Giovanni Grancino in Con-trada Largha di Milano al fegno della Corona 1712.'The first two letters of the date have been printed butthe 6 has been partially obliterated by a number 7which has been inked over the top. Obviously Gran-cino was still using up labels which had been printedbefore the turn of the century.

The inside work of the instrument is relativelyclean, with only a minimum of scraper marks visibleon the plates. (It is however possible this instrumenthas been reworked on the inside). The blocks and lin-ings are of pine and they are quite substantial espe-cially the upper and lower corner blocks whichmeasure respectively 30 and 35 mm across. The twoend blocks are half round in shape and quite roughlyfinished. The upper block still has 3 holes where thenails, which originally held the neck, were inserted.This top block is also made up of two pieces crudelyglued together. The outside piece has the grain run-ning in the normal direction, while the grain of theinside piece runs parallel to the ribs. 1 have seen thistrick used by G.B. Guadagnini and Gaspar da Saloamong others. It helped to reduce the possibility ofthe block splitting while the nails were being drivenhome. None of the pine linings including those of thecentre bouts are let into the blocks in the Cremonesemanner; they are simply butted up against them. Thelining are approximately 6 to 7.5 mm deep.

On the outside. the workmanship on this viola isgenerally cleaner than the solid but unfussy insidework. Few, if any, tool marks mar the outside surfaces

75

of the body. The head is an exception. Although instyle and line it balances well with the rest of the in-strument, in common with all Classical Italian works(to a greater or lesser degree) it bears traces of thegouge.

The head has a typically long, shallow, curving Mi-lanese pegbox almost flat at the chin. It flows neatlyinto the scroll, opening slightly on the second turnunder the eye; a common feature of Testore instru-ments. In spite of the clearly visible gouge marks, thesurface of the turns of the volutes are cut fairly flat,becoming gradually deeper as they turn around theeye. Viewed from the front, the bosses and the eyeshave a plantpot shape, characteristic of both Gran-cino and Testore schools. This plantpot shape is oftenquite extreme and is especially noticeable on celloheads, where it is accentuated by the narrow width ofthe scrolls.

All the surfaces of this scroll are scarred with toolmarks. We can see quite clearly that Grancino'sgouge had a large chip missing. The fluting along theback of the pegbox is typically very shallow, quicklyincreasing in depth as it curves around the top of thescroll where before the high spots were worn awaythey must have been extremely deep. OccasionallyGrancino and the Testores did not flute the area be-hind the pegbox. Instead they began the flutes at theback of the scroll at the point where the flow of thegrain becomes easier to work. On this viola long deepscratches probably from a rasp mark the surface ofthe flutes around the scroll itself. Rasp marks areoften prolific on Grancino and Testore heads. Theflutes under the front of the scroll are deeply workedcreating thin edges and a very pointed central spine.As can be seen from the photograph of the back ofthe head the flutes continue to run deep into thethroat. The pegbox is generous but not quite as wideas that of a comparable Cremonese box. The shoul-ders are small, rounded off and they slope backwardsfrom the nut. This arrangement certainly makes thisviola easier to play in the first position. The chin isungainly and shallow with no stringing where itschamfers join the shoulders.

Grancino cello heads are often hard in appearancewhereas his violin heads seem much softer. This violahead lies somewhere in between. Unlike those violaheads of Stradivari which have a tendency to appearoverweight this Grancino head balances very wellwith the body.

The body itself is deliberately elongated especiallyin the upper bouts. This feature taken together with

76

the lower setting of the sound holes has created asomewhat difficult stop length by today's standards.In this respect it is a viola which might not suit someplayers, in spite of its outstanding tonal qualities. Onthe back the long and narrow top and bottom boutsare accentuated by a typical flattening of the outlinecurves as they run into the corners. The cornersthemselves are clean and elegant and like the edge-

work they have a fairly shallow flute. Along the un-derside of the edge, a knife cut chamfer neatly fin-ishes the rounding of the edge. The back arching isstrong, flat and full across the centre bouts and seemsalmost certainly influenced by Cremonese work. Onthe back there is no inlaid purfling. Instead lines havebeen scratched and burned or perhaps stained di-rectly into the back in imitation of inlaid work. This

77

78

was a common practice among Milanese makers;they do not seem to have painted on purfling in themanner of the English makers. There are clearly nolocating pins in the back which might otherwise havebeen hiding under an inlaid purfling. The wood usedfor the back is of fine growth with a faint narrow fig-ure. It is cut on the quarter. Such lightly figured woodwas a frequent choice of the Milanese masters. Beau-tiful figured maple was for one reason or anothergenerally beyond their reach. The ribs are of similarwood to the back. .As usual, the top rib was originallymade up of one continuous piece across the neckroot. In contrast the head wood is of very widegrowth and has no figure.

Again in common with most Milanese instrumentsthe belly wood is of good quality with straight, wellpronounced reed lines. Unlike the back the belly ispurfled in' the normal way. It is boldly executed withwell stained blacks. As is usual on classical works theindividual strips of purfling vary in width through-out.

The edgework is similar to that of the back, hav-ing shallow fluting with the highest point well out to-wards the edge. In the centre bouts the flute runsinto the side of the soundholes but not into thewings. Again the arching is full and strong across thecentre. The arching is possibly the outstanding fea-ture of this viola, beautifully formed overall and nodoubt contributing also to its wonderful acousticalqualities. The central

bouts are wide when compared to the width of theupper and lower bouts. Consequently, although thetop circles of the sound holes have a wide setting, thesound holes have not had to be squeezed up againstthe edgework like a Bergonzi or a late Stradivari. Thesoundholes sit quite naturally on the arching leaningslightly inwards at the top. The four circles appear tohave been drilled but the process of joining them tothe main bodies of the holes has distorted themslightly. The bodies of the holes are cut almost verti-cally to the plates' surface. The nicks are large, slashyand typically Milanese.

I have already touched upon the varnish which isof a golden yellow colour and highly transparent.These yellow Milanese varnishes have been com-pared with the early Cremonese varnishes in partic-ular those of the Amati family. However they aresomewhat thinner and harder

in quality and quite different. On the belly the var-nish seems slightly darker and warmer in tone and

the reed lines have a typical Milanese prominencedue in part to their tendency to collect and hold dirt.On this viola the varnish is present in large amounts.

Throughout this article I have made reference tothe work of the Testore family in particular. We knowthat Carlo Giuseppe Testore was the pupil of GiovanniGrancino and in truth (as my old friend Daniel Dray-ley pointed out after THE STRAD scroll quiz of July1987) it is often extremely difficult to separate theirwork. Long may such problems remain to tease us!

This viola was formerly in the collection of Geigen-bau Machold whose co operation is greatly appreci-ated.

1 Von Lütgendorff Die Geigen and Lauren Macher (1904)

2 Karel Jalovec italienische Geiqenbauer (1957)

3 George Hart The Violin Famous Makers & their

4 Fridolin Hamma Meisterwerke Italienischer Geigenbaukunst

(1932)

5 Walter Hamma Meister Italienischer Geigenbaukunst Geigen-

baukunst (1965)

6 F. J. Fetis Anthonv Stradivari (English Ed, 1864)

7 Count Ignazio Alessandro Cozio Di Salabue. Technical Studies

in the Arts of Musical Instrument Making.

8 Translated by Andrew Dipper & David Woodrow

Max Moller Italiaansche Vioolbouv

9 Franz Farga Violins & Violinists (1950)

10 W.H., A.F. and A. E. Hill The Violin Makers o/ the Gum ner-

iFamily (1931)

11 W. H., A.F and A.E. Hill Antonio Suadivari, His Life & Work

(1902)

12 Vermillion,The Shrine to Music Museum. South Dakota.